State v. Dubois, 2012 R.I. LEXIS 19

Dubois was convicted on five counts of second-degree child molestation and sentenced to five concurrent 30-year terms with 12 years to serve.
The offenses allegedly occurred between 1992 and 1998 and involved family members as complainants.
Natalie’s sexual assault count was dismissed as time-barred, but she testified as a Rule 404(b) witness.
The trial court admitted two uncharged incidents of Natalie’s testimony under 404(b) and limited one other; one incident was excluded.
Lauren’s and Sarah’s testimonies described multiple instances of alleged sexual conduct by Dubois with younger family members.
Defense challenged mistrial motions, limits on cross-examination of two witnesses, and admission of certain Rule 404(b) evidence; trial court rulings were upheld on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the trial court err in denying mistrial motions?	Dubois argues prejudicial remarks tainted the jury.	Mistrial warranted due to inflammatory statements.	Not error; cautionary instructions sufficed.
Was the cross-examination of Ross and Normand properly limited?	Defense should probe bias and collusion to support defense theory.	Line of questioning lacked offer of proof and relevance.	Discretion upheld; questioning limited, no abuse.
Was testimony about uncharged sexual misconduct properly admitted under Rule 404(b) and 403?	Had probative value to prove intent/lewd disposition and corroborate charges.	Prejudicial and remote incidents should be excluded.	Admissible with limiting instructions; one incident excluded as too remote.

State v. Barkmeyer, 949 A.2d 984 (R.I.2008) (trial court discretion on mistrial and prejudice)
State v. Suero, 721 A.2d 426 (R.I.1998) (front-row-seat doctrine for trial decisions)
State v. Mello, 472 A.2d 302 (R.I.1984) (deference to trial court findings)
State v. Yelland, 676 A.2d 1335 (R.I.1996) (evaluate prejudicial impact in context)
State v. Mohapatra, 880 A.2d 802 (R.I.2005) (Rules 404(b) limiting instructions and prejudice)